Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282 <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-15.txt>

[Robert Cragie <[e-mail]>]

Unfortunately, when a term enters the vernacular, its meaning often gets 
misinterpreted (e.g. for 'ZigBee', read '802.15.4'; for '6lowpan stack', 
read 'some proprietary stack which uses 6lowpan-hc in there somewhere').

For that reason, I don't think we should get too hung up about what 
6lowpan is now considered to mean. In other words - let's publish.

Robert

On 11/08/2011 9:04 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hi Megan;
>
> I do 100% agree with Ralph here. I'd prefer that we make that change
> before publish. Apart from that, I'm perfectly happy with the text as it
> stands.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pascal
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:15 PM
>> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Megan Ferguson; Carsten Bormann; 6lowpan;
> RFC
>> Editor; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282
> <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-
>> 15.txt>
>>
>> Following up on Pascal's observation, I looked through the entire doc
> for
>> occurrences of "6lopwan".  In my opinion, all of those occurrences
> could be
>> replaced with "IEEE802.15.4-based network"; in some cases s/the
>> 6lowpan/an IEEE802.15.4-based network/   In either case, note the
> lower-
>> case "network".
>>
>> Not meaning to delay the publication process further, but I think we
> should
>> take a second to consider consistency...
>>
>> - Ralph
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM 8/9/11, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Megan
>>>
>>> I think that for consistency:
>>>
>>>    LOWPAN_HC1 and LOWPAN_HC2 are insufficient for most practical uses
>> of
>>>    IPv6 in 6LoWPANs.  LOWPAN_HC1 is most effective for link-local
>>>
>>> Should also become
>>>
>>>    LOWPAN_HC1 and LOWPAN_HC2 are insufficient for most practical uses
>> of
>>>    IPv6 in IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks. LOWPAN_HC1 is most effective
>>> for link-local
>>>
>>> Don't you think?
>>>
>>> Pascal
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Megan Ferguson [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:02 PM
>>>> To: Carsten Bormann; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Pascal Thubert
> (pthubert)
>>>> Cc: 6lowpan; RFC Editor; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [ADs] AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 6282
>>> <draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-
>>>> 15.txt>
>>>>
>>>> Carsten, Pascal, and *ADs,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your reply.  We have updated the title as requested.
>>> Please
>>>> note that we have also updated the expansion of 6LoWPAN (in the
> text)
>>> to
>>>> match that in the title of RFC 4919.  Additionally, we have updated
>>> the short
>>>> title that appears in the running header of the document (this is
> best
>>>> reviewed in the text file below).  Please review and approve these
>>> updates
>>>> or let us know if a different approach in either of these
> additional
>>> updates
>>>> would be preferable.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282-lastdiff.html
>>>>
>>>> The text, XML, and comprehensive diff files are viewable at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282.txt
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282.xml
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6282-diff.html
>>>>
>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to
> view
>>>> the most recent version of the document.  Please review the
> document
>>>> carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once the
>>>> document has been published as an RFC.
>>>>
>>>> Upon careful review, please contact us with any further updates or
>>> with
>>>> your approval of the document in its current form.
>>>>
>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc6282
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> RFC Editor/mf
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 8, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, I have reread all the messages, and I'm now ready to declare a
>>> (rough)
>>>> consensus for
>>>>> 	Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based
>>>> Networks
>>>>> (with an ever so slight edge for the -based, which is different
> from
>>> RFC
>>>> 4944, but "Datagrams" is different, too).
>>>>> While there were a number of voices for keeping 6LoWPAN in the
> title
>>> (as
>>>> in RFC 4919), there did not seem to be consensus for that.
>>>>> I apologize for holding up this RFC for so long for what is pretty
>>> much a
>>>> bikeshed color issue.
>>>>> And, yes, I'm slowly getting back to IETF work, and will try to
>>> start popping
>>>> the stack.
>>>>> Gruesse, Carsten
>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>